Accidents are a thing of the past

codprawn · 26 June 2008, 11:58

WHY? Because there is no such thing anymore - they always want to blame someone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7475127.stm

"The skipper of a fishing boat which sank off the County Down coast killing two people has been sentenced to 12 months in prison."

This is despite the very brave appeal from one of the victim's mothers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7470012.stm

Basically the boat ran into rocks and sunk - the skipper should have been in the wheelhouse but was on deck helping the crew. He failed to keep a proper watch.

Obviously he was in the wrong for that BUT the 2 crew were also experienced - they were obviously quite happy for him to be out of the wheelhouse as well.

Jailing the skipper has achieved nothing.

Poly · 26 June 2008, 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

He failed to keep a proper watch.

and as a direct result two people died. I don't see the argument that if he showed poor seamanship, ignored the colregs, and managed to run his own boat onto rocks in his home waters that he is not "to blame". He did plead guitly to manslaughter - so actually arguing that it was purely an accident doesn't stack up.

Quote:

Obviously he was in the wrong for that BUT the 2 crew were also experienced - they were obviously quite happy for him to be out of the wheelhouse as well.

That is suposition and speculation; and as I am sure you are aware the safety and well-being of the vessel is the skipper's responsibility.

Quote:

Jailing the skipper has achieved nothing.

but you could argue that with almost every negligent manslaughter case... the argument would be it was an accident and people have learned from it. On the otherhand it should send a message that this sort of approach to the safety of your employees is not acceptable, and has consequences.

John Kennett · 26 June 2008, 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

WHY? Because there is no such thing anymore - they always want to blame someone. . . .
Jailing the skipper has achieved nothing.

Are you complaining about the sentence, or the fact that he was prosecuted in the first place?

I don't know anything like enough about this incident to even have an opinion about whether he should have been jailed or not, but there seems little doubt that it wasn't an unavoidable accident [1].

The had a responsibilty to ensure the safety of his crew. For one reason or another, he appears to have neglected that responsibility with tragic consequences. Is that acceptable?

John

[1] Ironically, in one of your links there is the story of Paul Bogues who was killed in a genuine "accident" when he was hit by a freak wave . . .

codprawn · 26 June 2008, 14:09

The crew were old enough to be as aware of the risks as the skipper. It doesn't exactly take much common sense - surely the crew should have realised as well?

On a small fishing boat the distinction between the skipper and the crew tends to be far more blurred than on a ferry for example.

The family of the poor people who drowned obviously felt the same - if they felt there was no need to jail the skipper then surely their wishes should have been taken into account?

Next they will be prosecuting skippers for not forcing the crew to wear lifejackets.

Richard B · 26 June 2008, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

On a small fishing boat the distinction between the skipper and the crew tends to be far more blurred than on a ferry for example.

I don't believe it's "blurred" on any type of craft whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

Next they will be prosecuting skippers for not forcing the crew to wear lifejackets.

Not until it becomes a legal requirement.

Bigmuz7 · 26 June 2008, 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

surely the crew should have realised as well?

I dont think thats a fair argument. The crew are just that. A skipper has the ultimate responsibility for his boat.

With that logic you may as well start questioning the differences between good crew and bad crew

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

if they felt there was no need to jail the skipper then surely their wishes should have been taken into account?

Maybe the judge did,.. by reducing the tariff over what he would otherwise have imposed.

In the same vein as any other, the driver, skipper, must be in control of his/her vehicle or boat, and that is no one elses responsibility but theirs

codprawn · 26 June 2008, 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard B

I don't believe it's "blurred" on any type of craft whatsoever.

What about a husband and wife - or as in my case two brothers or friends with a boat jointly owned? My brother and I both fight for the wheel most of the time.

A very different scenario from a large ship where there is a proper master - first officer etc etc.

A suspended sentance could just as easily have been given and would have served just as well as even the family felt the man had received enough "punishment" as it was.

Poly · 26 June 2008, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

What about a husband and wife - or as in my case two brothers or friends with a boat jointly owned? My brother and I both fight for the wheel most of the time.

Well that is clearly not the case here. However I don't get what you are arguing: if I kill someone when driving my car through lack of attention can I share the responsibility/penalty etc with my wife in the passengers seat? maybe she should tell me to slow down, or watch out for the cyclist, etc...

Quote:

A suspended sentance could just as easily have been given and would have served just as well as even the family felt the man had received enough "punishment" as it was.

the judge obviously felt differently and had presumably had a chance to review the evidence, and listen to arguments from both prosecution and defence on the sentencing. Fortunately sentencing in the UK is performed by judges (who are to a large extent free from outside influence) not by the victims of crime (or their families) nor by internet forums... ...otherwise an outspoken few would have allsorts walking free, and minor offences punished with life in prison.

codprawn · 26 June 2008, 17:41

I wouldn't take judges impartiallity or sense of fairplay too seriously if I were you.............

There have been plenty of cases where a judge has given a stupidly short term to some evil scumbag and then given way too long for some trivial crime.

ian parkes · 26 June 2008, 19:19

I agree Codders , I don't see what a prison sentence has achieved in this case .
I epect they were all close firiends and families and what the skipper has to live with is punishment enough , maybe he shouldn't skipper a boat again but thats another argument .

Bigmuz7 · 26 June 2008, 20:28

So this is the problem then? .. that we are making too many people accountable for their mistakes by handing out a spell in prison ? when in actual fact we are loosing the abilty to accept that accidents will happen. So when will the health and safety crew finally stop then,.. where do you draw the line between what is an honest mistake, and a breach of H & S, or just a lack of COMMON SENSE

You wouldnt drive down the motorway doing 70 whilst looking out of the back window would you ? especially if you have passengers,.. you have a responsibility for them, for goodness sake, so how is this case any different ?

codprawn · 26 June 2008, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

So this is the problem then? .. that we are making too many people accountable for their mistakes by handing out a spell in prison ? when in actual fact we are loosing the abilty to accept that accidents will happen. So when will the health and safety crew finally stop then,.. where do you draw the line between what is an honest mistake, and a breach of H & S, or just a lack of COMMON SENSE

You wouldnt drive down the motorway doing 70 whilst looking out of the back window would you ? especially if you have passengers,.. you have a responsibility for them, for goodness sake, so how is this case any different ?

You hit the nail on the head - COMMON SENSE. If YOU had been on that boat would YOU have been happy to have the skipper on deck and not in the wheelhouse?

As the crew were obviously ok with that they obviously thought they weren't in any danger either!!!

If you were a passenger on a bus and the driver walked down the isle for a chat would you just sit there???

Poly · 26 June 2008, 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

You hit the nail on the head - COMMON SENSE. If YOU had been on that boat would YOU have been happy to have the skipper on deck and not in the wheelhouse?

you might if that has been normal practice whenever you sail with him (and possibly all your sailing career).

Quote:

As the crew were obviously ok with that they obviously thought they weren't in any danger either!!!

nobody knows if the crew were OK with it or they percieved the danger.

Quote:

If you were a passenger on a bus and the driver walked down the isle for a chat would you just sit there???

engage brain before making that analogy -- are you saying that if a bus driver left his seat whilst in motion, and killed two people he wouldn't/shouldn't get prosecuted for manslaughter? and it wouldn't be his "fault" because his passengers didn't intervene!

P.S. what has happened to you're normally pedantic spelling? isle!=aisle, sentance!

John Kennett · 26 June 2008, 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

As the crew were obviously ok with that they obviously thought they weren't in any danger either!!!

They may have thought that, they may not. If they did, they were wrong too.

From the MAIB report it seems that it may be common practise to leave the wheelhouse unattended when heading back to port. That doesn't make it right either, although it may have given the crew a false sense of security.

Here's a quiz: If someone t-boned your stationary car because they were talking on their mobile phone whilst driving and not paying attention, who's fault is it:

A - no one's
B - the car driver
C - the passengers in the car
D - yours

Answers on a postcard please . . .

John

codprawn · 26 June 2008, 21:51

Well if my car was sitting right across the road around a blind bend..........

Nos4r2 · 26 June 2008, 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

Well if my car was sitting right across the road around a blind bend..........

You should be driving at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see.

If that means going slowly round the blind bend then go slowly.

John Kennett · 26 June 2008, 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

Well if my car was sitting right across the road around a blind bend..........

It wasn't. I know, because it's my quiz.

Carry on . . .

Poly · 26 June 2008, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kennett

It wasn't. I know, because it's my quiz.

Applying "codlogic" the following would apply:

A - no one's - clearly this is just an accident, so this is the answer

B - the car driver - its not his fault he is just standing up against an opresive government!
C - the passengers in the car - its as much their fault as it is the car drivers if they percieved the hazard they should have stopped the car
D - yours - can't be Cod's fault - he is never wrong!

codprawn · 26 June 2008, 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polwart

Applying "codlogic" the following would apply:

A - no one's - clearly this is just an accident, so this is the answer

B - the car driver - its not his fault he is just standing up against an opresive government!
C - the passengers in the car - its as much their fault as it is the car drivers if they percieved the hazard they should have stopped the car
D - yours - can't be Cod's fault - he is never wrong!

I am sometimes - my spelling was terrible!!!

codprawn · 26 June 2008, 22:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

You should be driving at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see.

If that means going slowly round the blind bend then go slowly.

In theory you are perfectly correct - I learnt that lesson when I was 19 and went around a bend at 60mph to find 2 police cars - an ambulance and a Porsche upside down - stopped with inches to spare!!!

In practice not many people would be able to avoid a car parked sideways across a lane on something like the A465.